Cited by 0Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Data from Mouse Stromal Cells Confound Proteomic Characterization and Quantification of Xenograft Models

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1158/2767-9764.crc-22-0431 · Paper page

Abstract

Xenografts are essential models for studying cancer biology and developing oncology drugs, and are more informative with omics data. Most reported xenograft proteomics projects directly profiled tumors comprising human cancer cells and mouse stromal cells, followed by computational algorithms for assigning peptides to human and mouse proteins. We evaluated the performance of three main algorithms by carrying out benchmark studies on a series of human and mouse cell line mixtures and a set of liver patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. Our study showed that approximately half of the characterized peptides are common between human and mouse proteins, and their allocations to human or mouse proteins cannot be satisfactorily achieved by any algorithm. As a result, many human proteins are erroneously labeled as differentially expressed proteins (DEP) between samples from the same human cell line mixed with different percentages of mouse cells, and the number of such false DEPs increases superquadratically with the mouse cell percentage. When mouse stromal cells are not removed from PDX tumors, about 30%–40% of DEPs from pairwise comparisons of PDX models are false positives, and about 20% of real DEPs cannot be identified irrespective of the threshold for calling differential expression. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that it is advisable to separate human and mouse cells in xenograft tumors before proteomic profiling to obtain more accurate measurement of species-specific protein expression. Significance:This study advocates the separate-then-run over the run-then-separate approach as a better strategy for more reliable proteomic profiling of xenografts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/2767-9764.c.6551087

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shi, Z., Mao, B., Chen, X., Hao, P., & Guo, S.
Affiliations
  • ShanghaiTech University (CN)
  • Crown Bioscience (China) (CN)
Corresponding author
Guo, Sheng
Published
2023-04-04
OpenAlex
W4362525506
Cited by
0
References
3
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Keywords
patient-derived xenografts, differentially expressed proteins, false positives, liver cancer model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review